CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
B. Interpretation
The discussion of data after implementing the action consisted of three parts. Those are the discussion of cycle I, cycle II, and the students‟
learning activity of the research.
1. Cycle I
In this research, before doing the implementation, the researcher gave the students pre-test individually for the purpose to investigate the students writing ability. After the researcher getting the pre-test score of the students that was only 1 students (5%) could pass the test and the average score in this test was 56, so the researcher gave the treatment to the students in cycle I.
76
The treatment in the cycle I was conducted by teaching the students using brain sketching technique. Furthermore, the researcher also gave the post-test in this cycle that was named post-test 1. Afterwards, by analyzing the result of the post-test 1, the researcher concluded that there were 7 students (35%) who passed the post-test 1 and the average was 65.
From the result of the students‟ score in the pre-test and post-test 1, there was an improvement from the students‟ result score. It could be seen from average score in pre-test was 56 and post-test 1 was 65.
Although there was an improvement of the students‟ achievement, cycle I was not successful yet because only 7 or 35% students who passed the test in the post-test 1. It means that cycle I could improve the students writing ability in descriptive text but it was not yet successful because the students did not passed yet to the indicator of success.
2. Cycle 2
After analyzing the students‟ score in the post-test 1, the researcher had to conduct the next cycle because only 7 students (35%) passed the test and got the score that was ≥75.
In this cycle, the researcher gave the treatment and then gave post-test 2. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed the result of post-test 2 and inferred that there were 17 students (85%) passed the test because their score was ≥75 and the average score was 80. From the result of the
77
students‟ score from post-test 2, it could be concluded that there were score improvement. The improvement score could be seen on the average score. The average score in the post-test 1 and post-test 2 were 65 and 80. In the pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2, the total of students who got the score ≥75 were 1, 7, and 17 students. Because the achievement of the students had improved enough and the indicator of success was reached, the research was successful and could be stopped in cycle II.
Table 22
The Average of the writing Test Result Test
Pre-test Pre-test 1 Pre-test 2
Total 1111 1304 1603
Average 56 65 80
Moreover, the comparison of the students‟ average score can be seen on the graph bellow:
Figure 7
Graph of the Complete of Students’ Pre-test, Post-test 1, and Post test 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Pre-Test Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
1 7
17
78
Based on the result of pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2, it was showed that there was an improvement of the students‟ score. It could be seen from the average score from 56 to 65 the different being 9, the average score from 65 to 80 the different being 15. Therefore, the researcher conducted that the research was successful because the indicator of success in this research had been achieved.
3. The Students‟ Learning Activity
The students‟ learning activities data was gotten from the whole students‟ learning activities on observation sheet. The table improvement of this research, as follows:
Table 23
The Improvement of Students’ Activities I in the Cycle 1 and Cycle II
No Students Activities Cycle 1 Cycle II
Improvin F Percentag g
e
F Percentag e
1 The students give
attention to the teacher‟s explanation.
11 55% 17 85 % Improved
2 The students‟ writing ability in descriptive text improve by using brain sketching technique.
5 25% 17 85 % Improved
3 The students not find difficulties to write a new word by using brain sketching technique.
3 15% 16 80% Improved
4 The students were active in building teamwork.
4 20% 15 75% Improved
79
Based on the table of the improvement of the students‟ activities in the cycle I and cycle II, it can be described in the graph as follows:
Figure 8
The Improvement of Students’ Activities I in the Cycle 1 and Cycle II
Based on the data had gotten, it can be explained as follows:
a. The students give attention to the teacher‟s explanation
The students‟ attention to the teacher‟s explanation from the cycle I to cycle II was improve. In cycle I was only 55% and in cycle II 85%, it was improved 30%.
b. The students‟ writing ability in descriptive text improve by using brain sketching technique.
The students‟ writing ability in descriptive text improve by using brain sketching technique was improve from the cycle I to cycle II, in cycle I was only 25% and in cycle II 85%, it was improved 60%.. It showed when in the learning process the students were be able to describe text improve by using brain sketching technique.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity 4
Cycle I Cycle II
55% 85%
25%
85%
15%
80%
20%
75%
80
c. The students not find difficulties to write a new word by using brain sketching technique.
The students not find difficulties to write a new word by using brain sketching technique were improved. It could be seen on the cycle I and cycle II. For cycle I was only 15% and in cycle II 80%, it was improved 65%.
d. The students were active in building teamwork.
The students active in building teamwork were improved. It could be seen on the cycle I and cycle II. In cycle I was only 20% and in cycle II 75%, it was improved 50%.
Based on the data above, it could be concluded that the students felt comfortable and active with the learning process because most of the students shown good improvement in learning activities when the teacher used brain sketching technique to improve the students‟ writing ability in cycle I and cycle II.